↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological interventions other than botulinum toxin for spasticity after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacological interventions other than botulinum toxin for spasticity after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010362.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cameron Lindsay, Aphrodite Kouzouna, Christopher Simcox, Anand D Pandyan

Abstract

The long-term risk of stroke increases with age, and stroke is a common cause of disability in the community. Spasticity is considered a significantly disabling impairment that develops in people who have had a stroke. The burden of care is higher in stroke survivors who have spasticity when compared with stroke survivors without spasticity with regard to treatment costs, quality of life, and caregiver burden. To assess if pharmacological interventions for spasticity are more effective than no intervention, normal practice, or control at improving function following stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2016), Embase (2008 to May 2016), CINAHL (1982 to May 2016), AMED (1985 to May 2016), and eight further databases and trial registers. In an effort to identify further studies, we undertook handsearches of reference lists and contacted study authors and commercial companies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any systemically acting or locally acting drug versus placebo, control, or comparative drug with the aim of treating spasticity. Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We assessed the included studies for both quality and risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request further information when necessary. We included seven RCTs with a total 403 participants. We found a high risk of bias in all but one RCT. Two of the seven RCTs assessed a systemic drug versus placebo. We pooled data on an indirect measure of spasticity (160 participants) from these two studies but found no significant effect (odds ratio (OR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 13.07; I(2) = 85%). We identified a significant risk of adverse events per participant occurring in the treatment group versus placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.42; 160 participants; I(2) = 0%). Only one of these studies used a functional outcome measure, and we found no significant difference between groups.Of the other five studies, two assessed a systemic drug versus another systemic drug, one assessed a systemic drug versus local drug, and the final two assessed a local drug versus another local drug. The lack of high-quality RCTs limited our ability to make specific conclusions. Evidence is insufficient to determine if systemic antispasmodics are effective at improving function following stroke.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#939,498
of 13,179,842 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,960
of 10,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,778
of 267,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,179,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.